As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Entertainment?

The author of the Swallowing the Camel blog gives an interview on Jonathan Kay's book, in which she spends quite a lot of the time talking about us. She refers to us, in a somewhat favorable way as an "entertainment" blog, not a "primary debunking resource" and then scolds us and others for not being nice to Truthers, saying that we should be respectful.

OK, let me respond to that. I would have to agree that I wouldn't refer to us specifically as a debunking site, since that is only part of of what we do. As a primary resource I would recommend 9/11 Myths, 9/11 Debunking or the JREF forum. That does not mean, however, that we are not a debunking resource. We have done over 4,000 posts in the last 5 years, probably over a thousand of them on what you would refer to as "debunking" issues. Yes, that is one of the limits of the blog format that the 100+ posts we have done on nano-thermite don't immediately pop up. You have to search for them.

As far as "entertainment", yes, both Pat and I try to present things in a lively and entertaining manner, let's face it, Truthers can be pretty funny, and it can be pretty dry discussing the finer points of thermite for the 500th time. There is very little new in the "truth" movement, it has been 10 years after all, so yes, long ago we moved on to writing mostly about the sociological aspects of the movement, Kay did in his book.

As far as whether we are civil? Well, I will be the first to admit that we do not like truthers. They are dishonest, paranoid, and often stupid and reprehensible people. Yes, there are some that aren't too bad, and I will be at least civil to them, but in general it is stupid for me to sit here and pretend that I have respect for them, because I don't. They call us far worse names all the time, to the point of vague threats that we will be killed after the revolution, and it does not bother me at all. There is no point getting upset at those who are not tied to reality. I have tried debating Truthers in a civil and respectful manner, but it is pointless. You cannot debate conspiracy theorists. It is like debating a religious fanatic, you cannot debate beliefs which are not falsifiable.

181 Comments:

I'm here because I can't sit by and watch a new conspiracy mythology rise up uncontested.

It's mythology because 9/11 happened in bright daylight, in Manhattan, NY, and Washington D.C.. Hundreds of video cameras and thousands of still cameras caught every second.

There are no big mysteries as to what happened that day. The government screwed up, and Al Qaeda got lucky.

That's all there is to know.

Lies about using the strikes to invade Iraq, hide stolen money, and [insert your fucked up theory here] have born no fruit of fact.

Period.

More investigations won't change the basic facts of the events. More over there is no reason to bow to pressure from people who are clearly unbalanced mentally. The US government could start all over tomorrow, spend a decade reexamining all of the evidence, and the troofers will still cry cover-up.

You're an idiot. The more you comment, the stupider you seem. The best thing you could do for your cause, if you truly believe it, is to never say anything about it again. As a matter of fact, you could do more for your TRUE agenda by joining the conspiracy theorists... They'd reeeeeaally look stupid then.

James B. wrote, "...As far as whether we are civil? Well, I will be the first to admit that we do not like truthers. They are dishonest, paranoid, and often stupid and reprehensible people. Yes, there are some that aren't too bad, and I will be at least civil to them, but in general it is stupid for me to sit here and pretend that I have respect for them, because I don't. They call us far worse names all the time, to the point of vague threats that we will be killed after the revolution, and it does not bother me at all. There is no point getting upset at those who are not tied to reality. I have tried debating Truthers in a civil and respectful manner, but it is pointless. You cannot debate conspiracy theorists. It is like debating a religious fanatic, you cannot debate beliefs which are not falsifiable."

As a well-known critic of the 9/11 "truthers," I can safely confirm that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are the most vicious ad hominem spewing twits I have ever encountered. They are far worse than the most rabid, lead poisoned right-wingers.

As critics of conspiracy theorists are well aware, the first reaction of any conspiracy theorist to any criticism is to call the critic a "government agent"--always without a shred of proof.

Consider the massive egotism of this behavior. For example, you'll often hear conspiracy theorists whine--and I quote:

"Who but a paid government agent could disagree with this brilliant theory? It's the only possible explanation."

Thus, 9/11 conspiracy theorists are such geniuses and an alleged threat to the status quo that the government has to pay someone to come to a forum and disagree with them.

Really? No kidding?

The truth is far more disturbing because conspiracy theorists are absolutely infuritated by challenges to their theories and will instantly attack anyone who dares to disagree with them--witness Captain Crackpot or his sock puppet "Pat Cowardly."

It doesn't matter how polite or civil you try to be to these people. Disagreeing with a conspiracy theorist is a thought-crime, punishable by ceaseless character assassination--not "debate," over-the-top character assassination.

On the other hand, it's some comfort to note that 9/11 "truthers" fight with one another constantly--and when this happens, they call one another "government agents" or "provocateurs" and attack one another, just like they attack the rest of us. I'll bet almost all troofers have been called "CIA agents"--by other troofers, that is.

I wonder how much time she spends on the Truthers herself; her 9/11 Conspiracy tags comes up with nada. Truthers? Three posts since 2010, none this year. She does say that way back when, her boyfriend was a Truther, so that may be why she wants them treated with more respect.

Like you said, James, the first 1000 times I debunked Mineta's timeline it was a rush, but now it's snoozeville. I also winced when she said she supported a new investigation.

@ Ferris: I don't want a new investigation to placate Truthers, I want one to resolve actual questions about the breakdowns in intelligence going back to the '80s, possible ISI involvement, OBL's and KSM's roles, etc. I know perfectly well that Truthers will not accept the results of any investigation, and 90% of them don't want one anyway. But for me, "the government screwed up" isn't good enough.

@ GB - Well fine, be nasty and condescending to your own side, too. But I want to point out that I'm not one of those people who just has endless flame wars with Truthers online - I actually meet and interact with Truthers on a regular basis IRL. I've had death threats, hate mail galore, and a few lawsuit warnings too. If I can be civil to these people, damn near anyone can.

@ Pat - Categorizing your site as entertainment isn't a jab, trust me. I was trying to point out that Kay, to a large extent, was phoning it in. He didn't dig up a fraction of the dirt he could have.

And yeah, my blog is mostly entertainment too. The blog format is kinda limiting. The most you can hope for is to be informative and amusing and pique people's interest so that they dig into things themselves, and you guys have done a good job of that.

9/11 just isn't something I'm ready to tackle yet. It's an issue of vast geopolitical importance, not like the stupid/crazy shit I debunk. When I'm ready, I'll know. In the meantime I just provide a link to this site so people can peruse your links and figure it out for themselves.

Boy I hope some of Jonathan Kay's peers with-in Canada's Corporate media don't follow-up on his suggesting de-bunking resource " Screw Loose Change" NOT! He may one day regret that blunder as a managing Editor of one of Canada's National Newspapers."Among The Truthers " Kay is indeed a puzzle solver "Crank in other words " who's trying to figure out a way at shutting down anyone who dares question the events of 9/11. Right now he's got Richard Falk in his sites ... he's wasting his time though, Kay might want to be careful with whom deems antisemetic...That stuff is entertainment value for the Screw Loose crowd but I think of Glenn Beck with Kay's finger-pointing carelessness that could get him into trouble.

Some are attacking Falk for being anti-semitic, and others are attacking the interest groups that are calling for his resignation.

But, see, you're both wrong. After looking at the cartoon Falk posted, I can see that the yarmulke isn't obvious at first glance. I think he's being truthful when he claims he didn't notice it. However, if I thought he was lying - then, yeah, he's a self-hating douche. So I can't blame anyone for being pissed off at him right now.

Oh I see what's going on here. This vid was posted to 9/11 Blogger as propaganda in an anti-Kay campaign.

Well, let me make this clear. I didn't "downgrade" anything. And even though Kay's book could have been stronger in the bibliography department, I don't have any problem with the book overall nor with Kay himself. He knows how to be civil and professional. I'm going to ask that the video be removed from 9/11 Blogger.

I realize that you weren't trying to insult us. I am just pointing out that in addition to being entertaining, that we have done a lot of serious work. And this is pretty much the place to keep on on the movement from all aspects. Kay makes it quite clear that he is not writing a debunking book. Whether you like the book or not, it is kind of pointless to attack him for not writing a book that you think he should have written, like the truthers are doing.

And while a debunking book would be interesting, I have considered writing one myself, I can understand why Kay chose not to write it. It would be a huge undertaking for starters, just look at Bugliosi's voluminous tome on the JFK assassination, a much simpler event. No Truther would buy the book, heck they refuse to read criticism of their beliefs for free, and the number of non-Truthers who follow the movement is pretty limited, and they can already obtain whatever information they need on the Internet anyway.

My intention in giving this little interview wasn't to attack Kay or his book (which isn't stellar, but certainly readable). It was mostly to point out to Truthers that the Canadian media has not been attacking them. There are tons of good debunking blogs and sites and YouTube videos, but in Canada the big media hasn't even started to debunk Trutherdom yet. Shit has not gotten real.

The civility thing is self-explanatory, I think. When you're a skeptic and your Significant Other is a Truther, you realize you're not obligated to hold someone in disdain because they entertain a conspiracy theory. And I'm sure my friends who are Truthers appreciate not being judged and degraded when they're around me. I wish I had the time to go into more detail about that issue, but I don't at the moment. Someday soon, hopefully, I'll be able to tackle 9/11 Truth and all the drama that surrounds it on my blog. I've been behind the front lines for 4 years, and I have a lot to say.

P.S. I agree there isn't much of a market for debunking books or docs. Has to be done, though, so all this work doesn't go down the memory hole someday. New media's great, but what could beat a fat, info-laden tome in the Library of Congress? We need a Bugliosi.

My side would never support a "new investigation" in order to feed the delusions of the straight-jacket wearing 4% of the US population who belong in an institution for the insane.

Sarah Elliot wrote, "...But I want to point out that I'm not one of those people who just has endless flame wars with Truthers online - I actually meet and interact with Truthers on a regular basis IRL."

And what makes you think that I've never had occasion to [cough] "interact" with troofers? And you'd do very well to remember that the troofers started the flame war. As anyone who's familiar with this blog can attest, I'm civil to people who MERIT a civil discussion. Troofers, however, are rarely civil when their cockamamie ideas are questioned, let alone thoroughly debunked.

How many times must your life be threatened, or the innocent slaughtered in a barrage of bullets that emanate from a troofer's handgun, before you'll come to the realization that they're insane?

Sarah Elliot wrote, "...I've had death threats, hate mail galore, and a few lawsuit warnings too."

Welcome to the club.

Sarah Elliot wrote, "...If I can be civil to these people, damn near anyone can."

Perhaps. But until I see evidence of civility from their side of the table, I refuse to kiss their collective behind. Just keep reminding yourself that the troofers started the flame war; the troofers are the liars; the troofers are motivated by a hidden political agenda (the overthrow of the US government); and the troofers plan to kill their political opponents if they should ever come to power.

SM, I have personally received death threats, had my home address posted and been taunted about the death of my father last summer, all by Truthers. Kevin Barrett (among others) has fantasized about the day that all us debunkers are up on a scaffold somewhere. And there have been quite a few Truther murderers already--see Von Brunn, Fitzgerald, Loughner, and the Pentagon shooter whose name escapes me now.

Can you see why I might have just a wee problem with treating these people nicely? With taking their claims that nine of the hijackers are alive as worthy of serious consideration?

And I have to add. Despite the fact that my significant other is clear across the political spectrum from me, I could never have an intimate relationship with a truther, any more than a neo nazi or religious fanatic. I can respect someone who just has different political views than me, but not someone with no grasp of reality and whose worldview is based on hate and paranoia.

JamesB Said:I could never have an intimate relationship with a truther, any more than a neo nazi or religious fanatic.Tell that to Brian Good, he will try to screw anything, male or female, if a truther, the more he wants them!

There are no big mysteries of that day if you are an ideologue who assumes our government is incompetent and that's how it should be. That explains intelligence failures, turf wars, NORAD's inability to catch airliners, the collapse of the towers (shoddy construction), and any errors or omissions in the reports.

Polls show not only did a lot of Americans believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11, most of them who believed that believed that Bush administration figures had told them so. Bush lying us into war has been heavily researched, and a $3 trillion war provides many opportunities to steal money.

It's not surprising that a young man in California sees no need for answers. Who cares? Life's a ball! Surf's up! Some of us who were closer to the events than you were think that accountability and justice and democracy are important.

@ Pat - Of course, I get that. I've had the same issues with Truthers. But when I was talking about the need for civility, I didn't have in mind those people who make threats. Those guys are so far beyond the pale it's not worth engaging them at all, much less trying to have rational debates. I was thinking of average, non-professional Truthers.The ones who make threats, publish addresses, and talk longingly of the day when they'll see us all hang can go fuck themselves.

@ James - I get that. I couldn't be with a conspiranoid who hop-scotched from one theory to the next. But my partner doesn't do that, and his thoughts on 9/11 don't revolve around paranoid delusions or anger. That's another long story that I don't have time to tell here. Bottom line: I wouldn't be with a Truther anything like the ones Pat just described.

@ GB - You're not even reading my previous comments. I already explained what kind of 9/11 investigation I would want to see, and it's got nothing to do with Trutherism. Being nice to the Truthers who have been nice to me does not make me a Truther. I didn't say anything to merit your attack. You were fucking rude to me before I even commented here, without asking me a single question or knowing one thing about me (other than what you mistakenly think you saw in a very short video). Stop making the idiotic sexual jokes and implying that I'm some kind of Truther-infiltrator (which sounds paranoid, BTW) until you know me.

To Pat...(one thing we both can agree with) as a 9/11 Truth activist I too have received death threats, my address published on public web sites over my 5 years. I know how it feels so I can relate to what you had to endure. I think most people in the 9/11 truth movement are non-violent, respectable, intelligent people. Kay admits this too in his book "Among The Truthers". I believe the same can be said about most who are satisfied with the official 9/11 commission story are truly decent, intelligent respectable people too. There are bad apples on both sides of this 9/11 issue. I'm one 911 truth activist who says we have a SERIOUS public relations problem with this antisemitism that is used by Kay's National Post to demonize anyone who dares questions the events of 9/11 as antisemitic. This has been my beef with Kay's newspaper for years because no other news media entity does this in Canada except Canwest/ Postmedia inc. by promoting this mis-conception of 9/11 truthers. Former founder of Canwest and highly successful businessman in his time Mr. Izzy Asper once said "If you want the public to hear you once, you have to say what you're saying five or 10 times." I think he was absolutly correct. Sadly I don't think he intended that to be used in a malicious way with-in the Corporate Editorial policies of the NATIONAL POST as to hurt people unfairly like those who question the events of 9/11. No other news entity in Canada has demonized the 9/11 truth movement than Canada's Canwest/Postmedia ink. Repeating over and over and over and over in most articles that 9/11 truther equates to holocaust denial and antisemitism. Admittedly antisemitism doses exist in the 911truth movement as it does with-in any group including a few journalists, authors and writers with-in the news industry, but for the BULK of those in the 911 movement (and the media) this is NOT THE CASE. I do hope for the next 10 years with a new generation of 9/11 truth seekers will indeed adopt and promote ZERO tolerence to racism, antisemitism and HATE just like most PEACE movements have adopted over the years. "Blaming Jews and Muslims for the events of 9/11 is a losers script to follow."

Where do you truthers keep coming up with that? Kay went out of his way to say that he was not accusing truthers of being anti semites. He was extremely polite with you guys. Way more than he needed to be imho.

I guess you have not visited his Jonathan's "Among The Truthers" blog lately James...Richard Falk is featured as Kay's antisemitic of the week...NOT! If you get a chance to ask Jonathan Kay as managing Editor of the Post, "exactly how many times did Postmedia newspapers including the National Post run the Bishop Williamson story over the past 3 years" - The same Williamson the BULK OF THE 911 TRUTH MOVEMENT REJECTED AS A 9/11 TRUTHER - for his questionable Holacaust denial issues! THE BULK OF THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT that got no credit for rejecting this antisemetism .

Yes, I know. And when the investigations all revealed he had nothing to do with it, and the American public still thought there was a link, they were obligated to start a new, independent investigation. It's just political reality, right?

With respect to Saddam, it's not a case of the public disbelieving the investigation. It's a case of the public not even knowing there was one. Can you think of a reason the government would want to cover up Saddam's ties to 9/11?

Hawkeyi, you got a problem with reading? Kay doesn't label Falk the anti-Semitic (sic) of the week; he talks about Falk's anti-Semitic cartoon. Which it indisputably is, whether or not Falk recognized that fact when he posted it on his blog.

Sarah Elliot wrote, "...You're not even reading my previous comments. I already explained what kind of 9/11 investigation I would want to see, and it's got nothing to do with Trutherism."

I've read your comments, and I'm decidedly not impressed. Can you envision the outcome of your alleged "new investigation"? Probably not, so allow me to provide you with a clue, Sarah.

Every nutbag troofer from the psychopath who wears women's underwear in Palo Alto, CA to the bearded crackpot who lives in a tent down by the Hudson River will characterize your "new investigation" as a "limited hangout" orchestrated by--you guessed it--"the government." In the end, the "new investigation" will only serve to fuel the troofer's delusion that debunkers are government tools. You either buy into modified attack babboons and the paint-on "nanothermite" demolition scenario or you're a Cass Sunstein-trained "infiltrator."

Sarah Elliot wrote, "...Being nice to the Truthers who have been nice to me does not make me a Truther."

I don't recall saying that you're a troofer. In fact, I pointed out that any "new investigation" will simply "feed the delusions of the straight-jacket wearing 4% of the US population who belong in an institution for the insane."

Big difference, Sarah.

Sarah Elliot wrote, "...I didn't say anything to merit your attack. You were fucking rude to me before I even commented here, without asking me a single question or knowing one thing about me (other than what you mistakenly think you saw in a very short video). Stop making the idiotic sexual jokes and implying that I'm some kind of Truther-infiltrator (which sounds paranoid, BTW) until you know me."

So who's "swallowing camels" now, Sarah? Debunkers don't advocate a "new investigation" because, as we've pointed out and documented for years, a "new investigation" is simply not merited by the available evidence.

In fact, troofers, for the most part, don't give a tinker's damn about the victims, "the widows," or "the truth." A "new investigation" would immediately be hijacked by the likes of Captain Crackpot and turned into a Kangaroo Court designed to settle political vendettas, not arrive at "the truth."

You're incredibly naive, and you need to wake up to the reality of whom you're dealing with when you jump onto the "new investigation" bandwagon. Those of us who've walked the point in the battle against the deceptively named "9/11 truth movement" know very well where your "new investigation" will lead, and "the truth" will be jettisoned for the political vendetta that lives just under the surface of the liars, degenerates, neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, aspiring Victoria's Secret "models" and garden-variety nutbars who comprise the so-called "9/11 truth movement."

Sorry Pat - Clearly this was not a news worthy story- clearly Mr.Falk was in error but was innocent of any wrong doing. He did not deserve being outed as a possible antisemitic as Kay conveys with this post. Just as Malcolm X once said “The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”

"...Just as Malcolm X once said 'The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.'"

See what I mean, Sarah?

Are you sure it's a good idea to jump into bed with a pack of crazies who believe the media "control the minds of the masses"?

The investigation was incompetent, dishonest, and unbelievable. It did not address the baffling aspects of Saddam Hussein's rule, such as his use of MiG-29 aircraft, his invasion of Iran, his secret colony on Mars, and his development of commercially viable fusion power.

Also, it never addressed the list of 745 omissions and distortions as Gary Dorrien has chronicled, and only 4 out of the 76 questions by the widows of soldiers of the 1st Marine Division who died in the assault on Baghdad were answered.

Hawkeyi said...I think most people in the 9/11 truth movement are non-violent, respectable, intelligent people.

Nonsense.

“Sheeple. People are asleep. The media control the minds of the masses”, etc.

This is a common theme throughout the 'movement'; they believe they are superior to everyone else (who does not agree with them).

These are not beliefs held by ‘respectable’ people.

Also, such people are often (always?) the base support of an authoritarian regime, and therefore cannot be counted as ‘respectable’, or non-violent.

Plus, the truthers acceptance of anti-Semitism, and of using Nazi-inspired publications to ‘prove’ support for their theories, also puts the ‘intelligent’ tag to rest, along with ‘respectable’ and ‘non-violent’.

And, I'm not even mentioning their belief that the pilots, fire fighters, police, media. etc., were cowards, or in on the thing.

" I want one to resolve actual questions about the breakdowns in intelligence going back to the '80s,"

The 1980s?

The US wasn't even on Al Qaeda's radar until Desert Storm in 1991.

"possible ISI involvement, OBL's and KSM's roles, etc."

We know OBL and KSM's level of involvement in 9/11. Say we find out that the ISI had significant involvement - then what? Do we nuke them? That's how that line of reasoning is resolved. Pakistan has nukes. Our troops are in range (Afghanistan/Iraq), our allies are in range (India, Saudi Arabia).

So with your nifty investigation leading to the ISI's front door what happens next? What if the investigation is misleading? What if the key witnesses are like the key witnesses who made the case for Iraqi WMDs?

You assume that investigations have not already been made within CIA, and the FBI. Troofers will automatically say that the CIA cannot be trusted.

The fact is that from the mid-1990s to 9/11/2001 the CIA was undergoing extensive investigations - by the FBI- at the behest of liberal asshole-types and right-wing anti-government types. This crippled the CIA and the FBI. Nobody wanted to take the kind of risks needed to catch the AQ hijackers.

In short, people who called for investigations caused the security gaps that made 9/11 possible. The same idiots are the ones calling for "new investigations" now.

GuitarBill wrote: "the media exist to deliver an audience to advertisers."

True enough, but that's not all. The media exist to deliver an audience of confident consumers to advertisers.

MGF, how do you know what I wanted the government to be? I wanted enough good faith and competence that I could ignore the idiots and tend my own garden. But that was too much to ask.

You're the one who denied (in the Bug Feature thread) that public opinion counts for something in a democracy, not me. The fact that Americans were wrong about Saddam and 9/11 proves my point, not yours.

How do you know the US wasn't on al Qaeda's radar? If Osama was offended by US military bases he would have been offended by US construction contractors as well.

There were no risks necessary to catch known terrorists who were guilty of visa violations.

The notion that civil liberties caused 9/11 is not just stupid, not just wrong, it's evil.

What risks were involved in detaining known terrorists for visa violations? Were the US Border Patrol agents who arrested the Millennium Bomber in 2000 punished? Did those liberal asshole types protest that the terrorist's constitutional rights were violated?

Hawkeyi, there's an old saying: If you hand your enemy a club, don't be surprised if he bashes you over the head with it. Falk handed his enemies a club and I can't feel too sorry for the dent on his noggin.

Just as I don't regret a bit pointing out holocaust denial or murders by 9-11 Truthers. They are selling a profoundly dishonest story about the events of that day, and I will (metaphorically of course) hit them with any implement they make available.

Pat, certainly the twoofers deserve to be bashed with whatever clubs they hand you--and the liars on the official side do too. Condi Rice got away with perjury. You let Ian lie in almost every post he makes. You let Guitar Bill say stupid things and then deny that he said them. Your selective outrage is noted. I've done my best to go after lies on both sides.

The fact you as a person are such a mess of flawed reasoning, bad information and your general persona as the typical 60 year old mentally challenged loser in life is the best weapon we have. And your truthers buddies know that.

You will never meet a bright and informed truthers, the best they can say is they’re not you.

I think this notion of "civil" discussion with Truthers very much misses the point.

If there's one thing Truthers DON'T want, it's civil discussion. Oh, they like to create the impression that's what they want, because they believe the world just isn't giving their ideas a fair chance. But when offered any kind of structured discussion, their response 90% of the time is to run for the hills. (The other 10% they ignore the structure and treat it like an Internet debate.)

Analogous to this is the Truth movement's extreme aversion to peer review, and the lengths they've gone to lie about their work being "peer reviewed" when it is no such thing. Why not just submit to peer review? That would get them all the substantive response they'd ever want.

9-11 Truth can only survive in consequence-free Internet environments like this one. The minute Truthers can't hijack the thread, or dump in fifty irrelevant talking points, or change the subject constantly, or keep bringing up stuff that's long since been answered, their ideas are quickly seen as lacking.

Look at JREF. Their forum rules absoutely REQUIRE civil discussion. For the most part, Truthers won't go near the place.

Why should we offer "civil discussion" to a group who refuses it every time it is offered?

You can't demonstrate the presence of barium oxide/nitrate at Ground Zero, thus, no thermate; you can't demonstrate the presence of aluminum oxide at Ground Zero, thus, no thermite; and you can't demonstrate the presence of molten tin, copper or tungsten at Ground Zero, thus no thermite analogues. The non-reproducibility of Jones' experimental results, moreover, rules out the alleged presence of "nanothermite" at Ground Zero.

Furthermore, your claim that the USGS's particle atlas is "incomplete", when the particle atlas has never been modified or updated after all these years, doesn't lend the force of credibility to your argument.

You have no evidence whatsoever for the presence of thermite, thermate, "nanothermite," or thermite/thermate analogues at Ground Zero.

Once again, you FAIL.

All you have are lies, propaganda and pseudo-science--which is demonstrated by your reliance on garbage "scientific papers" from Bentham Open.

Captain Crackpot squeals, "...True enough, but that's not all. The media exist to deliver an audience of confident consumers to advertisers."

Too bad the media have utterly failed over the last three years to "deliver an audience of confident consumers to advertisers." Have you seen the consumer data? Today, corporate America sits on over a trillion dollars in profits. But where did they make all that loot? They made the money in "emerging markets"--China, India and Brazil for the most part. So where are all your alleged "confident consumers"? They certainly aren't to be found within the confines of the US.

UtterFail, you refuse to learn. Barium is not a necessary ingredient to thermite or thermate. Your continued babbling about it is not just dumb, it's loony.

Your belief that there is no aluminum oxide is also loony. What happened to all the aluminum cladding of the WTC? Elemental aluminum does not exist in air--it oxidizes. You are only revealing your ignorance.

The fact that USGS has not updated their atlas does not show it was complete. One thing that should be investigated is just when and why USGS terminated those studies.

The molten steel to which 4 PhDs and a dozen other witnesses (including Leslie Robertson) testified is evidence of thermite because jet fuel can not melt steel. Jones's exothermic chips are evidence of thermite. The FEMA Appendix C samples are evidence of thermate. So you're lying.

That consumer confidence is low does not contradict the proposition that the purpose of the media is to deliver confident consumers to the ads.

Captain Crackpot whines, "...Your belief that there is no aluminum oxide is also loony. What happened to all the aluminum cladding of the WTC? Elemental aluminum does not exist in air--it oxidizes."

Another lie. You can't demonstrate the presence of molten iron at Ground Zero, either; thus, you have no evidence for the presence of thermite or thermate.

FAIL.

Captain Crackpot lies, "...The molten steel to which 4 PhDs and a dozen other witnesses (including Leslie Robertson) testified is evidence of thermite because jet fuel can not melt steel."

False.

You can't show me an assay that demonstrates the alleged presence of molten iron; thus, no molten steel. All you have is speculation. And speculation, whether the source of the speculation has a Ph.D or otherwise is not evidence. Again, for thousandth time, conjecture is not evidence.

Another lie. The non-reproducibility of Jones' experimental results proves that his theory is garbage. And the FEMA section C samples are evidence of erosion, not thermate, as was proven by Drs. Barnett, Beiderman, and Sisson.

FAIL.

Captain Crackpot squeals, "...That consumer confidence is low does not contradict the proposition that the purpose of the media is to deliver confident consumers to the ads."

More proof that you can't read. The lack of consumer confidence and the three year-long collapse of the American consumer is proof that the media can't deliver on "confident consumers" with any reliability.

So all you've managed to demonstrate is an inability to read or tell the truth.

The temperature of molten steel is 2750 degrees F. Thus, had molten steel been present at Ground Zero, the clean up workers standing above the alleged "pools of molten steel" would have been fried to a crisp. Hence, no molten steel at Ground Zero.

Look at JREF. Their forum rules absoutely REQUIRE civil discussion. For the most part, Truthers won't go near the place.

Why should we offer "civil discussion" to a group who refuses it every time it is offered?

I got banned from JREF because I told a moderator to stick the infraction they gave me (it was without merit) up their ass. was being uncivil because the Truthers there were being uncivil and what happens? I get the boot! I mean WTF kind of Mickey Mouse Club people are they hiring over there? Nothing against the people who go on there, but those Moderators need to look at the bigger picture instead of weeding out those who are defending themselves. They even banned another member who did the exact thing I did, defending ones self. And I don't give a rat's ass if this post does get looked at the Moderators. What they did was wrong and frankly they shouldn't even have the job as Moderator on JREF.

"You're the one who denied (in the Bug Feature thread) that public opinion counts for something in a democracy, not me. The fact that Americans were wrong about Saddam and 9/11 proves my point, not yours."

I quoted you from that thread, fuckstick.

Oh, and if there has never been a serious, reliable investigation then how can you be so sure about Saddam's lack of involvement?

I mean if you insist on being intellectually honest and consistant you can't assume anything. You can't just chose which reports to accept, and which reports to go crazy with.

"How do you know the US wasn't on al Qaeda's radar?"

The lack of attacks on the US by Al Qaeda. The lack angry statements by Al Qaeda containing direct threats. AQ gave us fair warning before each strike, and then took credit for them (including 9/11).

"If Osama was offended by US military bases he would have been offended by US construction contractors as well. "

I doubt it. Bin Laden Construction is the #1 contractor in the Middle East. If you need something built on the Saudi Peninsula you call them. They get the job done on time and within budget. After their Mecca job their stock went through the roof. Even today you'd be a fool not to contract with the Bin Laden Group if you have a major construction job there.

So no, US contractors were in no way at threat to OBL.

"There were no risks necessary to catch known terrorists who were guilty of visa violations."

...and then you say this:

"The notion that civil liberties caused 9/11 is not just stupid, not just wrong, it's evil."

Well which is it then , Captain Dipshit? Because they were only suspected terrorists. Associating with AQ didn't automatically make one a terrorist in 1999. A search of their appartments would have turned up nothing suspicious, and all that would have happened was that they'd be put on a plane to their country or origin.

The Millenium Bomber was arrested with explosives in his car at a border checkpoint. There was no inter-agency involvement of any kind.

There was no thermite used in the attacks of 9/11. There were no pools of molten steel. If there had been there would have been thousands of witnesses instead of the handful that you're probably misquoting.

"...Leslie Robertson told a Stanford audience that he saw a little river of molten steel."

False. Source.

Furthermore, "he saw" is meaningless. Only an assay can determine the makeup of the alleged "molten steel." For all you or anyone else knows, it was molten aluminum, which melts at a much lower temperature (600-800 degrees F, depending on the composition of the alloy).

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

Obviously, you talk out of both sides of your mealy mouth--that is, when you're not lying.

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

Look at yourself. You can't even defend what you regard to be self-evident truths without lying.

I pointed out that you were wrong, that the elemental analysis in the paper we were discussing showed that barium was present, and it did not tell us what form of barium it was.

You are, with typical dishonesty, trying to confuse that paper with another one, the particle atlas. And with typical irrationality you are trying to claim that because one type of barium was found, therefore no other type was present. You are claiming this in spite of the fact that the particle atlas says it is not complete. Your argument is as specious as to claim: "Look! The sun! That proves that the moon and the stars do not exist!"

Then you further demonstrate your incompetence by repetitively misconstruing what I said. I was not claiming that barium oxide was present. I don't know if it was present (and neither do you) and I don't care. You were claiming that it was not present.

Yeah, you wouldn't be the only one. I got into it with those humorless dolts on more than one occasion. They even tried to shut down the hilarious cartoon thread. (Exception: LashL, who is awesome.)

I believe that we've had our fair share of idiot Truthers on JREF. I just wish the Mods would boot some of them instead of those who aren't coming there to argue with them. Defending yourself in a forum is your right, not the Mods right when they so choose it. (LashL is alright by my standards, the others are questionable.)

Their questionable judgment aside, they do make pains to ensure polite discussion of 9-11 conspiracy matters. Still, very few takers from Twoofyland.

I'll give them that, but they need to slack off people who are really and truely defending themselves. I believe that I was set-up to get banned by the Twoofers, I tell the truth about them and they take it as a "personal attack" and they run to the Mods crying. Those infractions are garbage, I guess in a real forum setting there weren't infractions, but rather arguements in defense. Twoofers hate JREF and they hate the debunkers on there. (If the Mods at JREF don't want a bad rap, they should atleast apologize, I was "9/11 Chewy Defense" after all.)

Captain Crackpot lies, "...I pointed out that you were wrong, that the elemental analysis in the paper we were discussing showed that barium was present, and it did not tell us what form of barium it was."

This is more proof that you don't know what you're talking about, idiot. You don't look at the elemental analysis for specifics--you bullheaded jackass. You consult the particle atlas. And the particle atlas is clear: The only form of barium-based compound found at Ground Zero was barite (BaSO4). Get it through your thick skull--you science illiterate moron.

FAIL.

Captain Crackpot continues to lie, "...Then you further demonstrate your incompetence by repetitively misconstruing what I said. I was not claiming that barium oxide was present."

Bullshit! Who do you think you're fooling--you psychopath?

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

You also made the following claim:

"...Any BaO [barium oxide] is in the 800 ppm barium measured by the USGS. Where else could it be?" -- Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 06 July, 2011 01:29.

"...The barium oxide is in the 800 ppm barium that USGS found in the dust." Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 06 July, 2011 01:09.

So, you were "not claiming that barium oxide was present"???? I just produced three direct quotes that prove that you did, in fact, claim barium oxide was in the dust--YOU GOD DAMNED LIAR.

NOW STOP LYING--YOU GOD DAMNED PSYCHOPATH. YOU TURN MY STOMACH YOU FUCKING LIAR! NOW GET OUT OF HERE--YOU LYING SACK-OF-SHIT--AND TAKE YOUR NEVER-ENDING STREAM OF LIES WITH YOU--YOU NO ACCOUNT COMPULSIVE LIAR.

"I never said the embassy bombings and the Cole attack were in the 1980s. I was talking about the US being on al Qaeda's radar."

You specifically used those two attacks as proof that the US "was on al Qaeda's radar" in the 1980's. But for that to be the case, the attacks would have happened much closer to the 1980's, not at the end of the 1990's. The timing of those attacks in fact provides evidence that untill 1991 and the First Gulf War there was likely little to no interest in attacking the US.

UtterFail, you're only making it worse. I wasn't looking at an elemental analysis for specifics--you were! And I was pointing out to you that it was idiotic for you to do so. If you'd had first quarter freshman chemistry you would know what an elemental analysis is.

The particle atlas is not complete. It says so in paragraph 2. Also, they don't tell us where they collected their samples. Remember, some locations showed 400 ppm barium and one location showed 3800 ppm barium. The locally high barium component at the 3800 ppm site one block from ground zero might show a different population of barium compounds than samples taken from other locations.

I must have explained to you six times that when I pointed out to you that you didn't know if there was barium oxide or not, I was not claiming there was no barium oxide.

Your inability to understand this simple concept is as stupid as it is to fail to understand that when you say someone is "not guilty" that does not mean you are saying they are "innocent".

What I said was absolutely correct, and your inability to understand it suggests that you're really not equipped for this activity. It's very simple stuff.

None of your three quotes show that I claimed there was barium oxide. In one of them, the 7/06 01:09 with typical dishonesty you took my words out of context. I was talking about your hypothetical barium nitrate, which you have irrationally and erroneously claimed should be present after a thermite reaction, and I was talking about your irrational and erroneous claims that conservation of mass had been violated. I was talking about your hypothetical. Here's what I said:

"UtterFail, the wikipedia article on barium nitrate answers your question. Barium nitrate decomposes under high temps to Barium oxide, nitrous oxide, and oxygen. The barium oxide is in the 800 ppm barium that USGS found in the dust. The nitrous and oxygen entered the atmosphere. Your blather about conservation of mass is just bluff. You don't know enough about the subject to have any idea how ridiculous you sound."

Captain Crackpot continues to lie, "...I was not claiming there was no barium oxide."

Really? No kidding?

You're a liar. I just produced three DIRECT QUOTES THAT PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THAT YOU DID, IN FACT, CLAIM BARIUM OXIDE WAS PRESENT AT GROUND ZERO:

Again, claim number [1], which proves you're a liar:

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- The goat fucker, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

And here's claim number [2], which also proves you're a liar:

"...Any BaO [barium oxide] is in the 800 ppm barium measured by the USGS. Where else could it be?" -- Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 06 July, 2011 01:29.

And here's claim number [3], which proves CONCLUSIVELY you're a liar:

"...The barium oxide is in the 800 ppm barium that USGS found in the dust." Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 06 July, 2011 01:09.

You're a compulsive liar. You lie so often that you can't keep the lies you tell straight in that senile lump of shit attached to your neck.

You're a psychopath.

FAIL.

Now CHANGE THE SUBJECT and ignore all the evidence that proves you're a LIAR, and squirm, Captain Crackpot, squirm--you LYING WEASEL.

JR, my point was that OBL only ever made one demand on the USA, and that was that they close the military bases on the Saudi peninsula. He was offended by the presence of infidels in the holy land. (And he won that demand.) That being the case I think that one could assume that he would have been offended by the presence of American contractors such as Bechtel in the 1980s and that the Americans would be "on his radar" even though at the time he was taking their money to fight the Soviets.

I was so distracted by MGF's idiotic belief that OBL would not be offended by the presence of infidels who competed directly with his family business in Saudi Arabia that I forgot the context of his other remark about no attacks. Bechtel had a contract from the 70's to late 80's to build a 360-square-mile city, Jubail

Stop lying, Captain Crackpot. I will NOT allow you to bury your lies in dumbspam.

Again, claim number [1], which proves you're a liar:

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- The goat fucker, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

And here's claim number [2], which also proves you're a liar:

"...Any BaO [barium oxide] is in the 800 ppm barium measured by the USGS. Where else could it be?" -- Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 06 July, 2011 01:29.

And here's claim number [3], which proves CONCLUSIVELY you're a liar:

"...The barium oxide is in the 800 ppm barium that USGS found in the dust." Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 06 July, 2011 01:09.

You're a compulsive liar. You lie so often that you can't keep the lies you tell straight in that senile lump of shit attached to your neck.

You're a psychopath.

FAIL.

Now CHANGE THE SUBJECT and ignore all the evidence that proves you're a LIAR, and squirm, Captain Crackpot, squirm--you LYING WEASEL.

UtterFail, you just keep spamming the same nonsense again and again. You don't know how to read. You're a persistent liar. Those quotes do not say what you claim. The third quote you blatantly take out of context.

And this whole barium kick of yours has been a total waste of time because barium is not a necessary component of thermite or thermate.

Captain Crackpot continues to lie, "...I said: ANY barium that exists. I didn't say it existed."

False. Another pack of lies.

Here's what you wrote: "...Then you further demonstrate your incompetence by repetitively misconstruing what I said. I was not claiming that barium oxide was present." -- Captain Crackpot, "Entertainment?", 13 July, 2011 07:00.

But that's a bald-faced lie as the following DIRECT QUOTES prove CONCLUSIVELY:

Again, claim number [1], which proves that you're a liar:

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

And here's claim number [2], which also proves that you're a liar:

"...Any BaO [barium oxide] is in the 800 ppm barium measured by the USGS. Where else could it be?" -- Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 06 July, 2011 01:29.

And here's claim number [3], which proves CONCLUSIVELY that you're a liar:

"...The barium oxide is in the 800 ppm barium that USGS found in the dust." Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 06 July, 2011 01:09.

I know very well how to read--you God damned liar. And the quotes I reference above prove CONCLUSIVELY that you're lying. You DID claim barium oxide was present at Ground Zero.

Again, claim number [1], which proves that you're a liar:

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

And here's claim number [2], which also proves that you're a liar:

"...Any BaO [barium oxide] is in the 800 ppm barium measured by the USGS. Where else could it be?" -- Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 06 July, 2011 01:29.

And here's claim number [3], which proves CONCLUSIVELY that you're a liar:

"...The barium oxide is in the 800 ppm barium that USGS found in the dust." Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 06 July, 2011 01:09.

UtterFail, all you're proving conclusively is your own failings in reading comprehension, your dishonesty in blatantly taking the third quote out of context, and your bizarre compulsion to make a fool of yourself again and again and again.

Here's what you wrote: "...Then you further demonstrate your incompetence by repetitively misconstruing what I said. I was not claiming that barium oxide was present." -- Captain Crackpot, "Entertainment?", 13 July, 2011 07:00.

Of course, this is a bald-faced lie, as the following DIRECT QUOTES prove CONCLUSIVELY:

Again, claim number [1], which proves that you're a liar:

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

And here's claim number [2], which also proves that you're a liar:

"...Any BaO [barium oxide] is in the 800 ppm barium measured by the USGS. Where else could it be?" -- Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 06 July, 2011 01:29.

And here's claim number [3], which proves CONCLUSIVELY that you're a liar:

"...The barium oxide is in the 800 ppm barium that USGS found in the dust." Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 06 July, 2011 01:09.

You are a liar. Do you honestly believe that continued lying and trying to bury your lies in dumbspam will save you?

Here's what you wrote: "...Then you further demonstrate your incompetence by repetitively misconstruing what I said. I was not claiming that barium oxide was present." -- Captain Crackpot, "Entertainment?", 13 July, 2011 07:00.

Again, claim number [1], which proves that you're a liar:

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

And here's claim number [2], which also proves that you're a liar:

"...Any BaO [barium oxide] is in the 800 ppm barium measured by the USGS. Where else could it be?" -- Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 06 July, 2011 01:29.

And here's claim number [3], which proves CONCLUSIVELY that you're a liar:

"...The barium oxide is in the 800 ppm barium that USGS found in the dust." Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 06 July, 2011 01:09.

Get it through your thick skull, Captain Crackpot: I will not allow you to bury your lies in dumbspam. I'm fed up with you and the never-ending stream of lies that emanates from your keyboard.

Liar! How many times must I tell you: I will not allow you to bury your lies in dumbspam. I'm fed up with you and the never-ending stream of lies that emanates from your keyboard.

Here's what you wrote: "...Then you further demonstrate your incompetence by repetitively misconstruing what I said. I was not claiming that barium oxide was present." -- Captain Crackpot, "Entertainment?", 13 July, 2011 07:00.

Again, claim number [1], which proves that you're a liar:

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

And here's claim number [2], which also proves that you're a liar:

"...Any BaO [barium oxide] is in the 800 ppm barium measured by the USGS. Where else could it be?" -- Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 06 July, 2011 01:29.

And here's claim number [3], which proves CONCLUSIVELY that you're a liar:

"...The barium oxide is in the 800 ppm barium that USGS found in the dust." Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 06 July, 2011 01:09.

You're a compulsive liar. You lie so often that you can't keep the lies you tell straight in that senile lump of shit attached to your neck.

Here are the links that prove CONCLUSIVELY that your quotes were NOT taken out of context:

Here's what you wrote: "...Then you further demonstrate your incompetence by repetitively misconstruing what I said. I was not claiming that barium oxide was present." -- Captain Crackpot, "Entertainment?", 13 July, 2011 07:00.

Again, claim number [1], which proves that you're a liar:

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

You keep making the same clearly erroneous claims, only demonstrating your nincumpoopetence. You are misinterpreting the first two statements because you don't know how to read. And you dishonestly took the third statement out of its hypotheticsal context.

Here's what you wrote: "...Then you further demonstrate your incompetence by repetitively misconstruing what I said. I was not claiming that barium oxide was present." -- Captain Crackpot, "Entertainment?", 13 July, 2011 07:00.

Again, claim number [1], which proves that you're a liar:

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

Your third quote was in the context of a hypothetical. It is thus taken out of context. I didn't say there was barium ocide in the dust. I said there if there was barium nitrate in thermate, then there would have been barium oxide in the dust.

Are you really so stupid that you can't understand what a hypothetical is? Has life as a code monkey driven you mad?

Your third quote was part of a hypothetical, and you took it out of context. I didn't say there was barium oxide in the dust. I said that if there had been barium nitrate in thermate, then there would have been barium oxide in the dust.

Are you really unable to understand what a hypothetical is? Has life as a code monkey driven you mad?

How many times do you intend to change your ever-shifting rational, Captain Crackpot? (And remember, folks, an ever-shifting rational is the defining characteristic of a liar.)

Here's what you wrote: "...Then you further demonstrate your incompetence by repetitively misconstruing what I said. I was not claiming that barium oxide was present." -- Captain Crackpot, "Entertainment?", 13 July, 2011 07:00.

Again, claim number [1], which proves that you're a liar:

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

"...You're saying you don't know the difference between a hypothetical and a statement of fact?"

Oh shut up--you God damned liar. Your statement wasn't a "hypothetical." And anyone who reads your post can see that you're a liar.

Notice that Captain Crackpot cannot and will not substantiate his argument. All you have are bluff, bluster and bald-faced lies.

Here's what you wrote: "...Then you further demonstrate your incompetence by repetitively misconstruing what I said. I was not claiming that barium oxide was present." -- Captain Crackpot, "Entertainment?", 13 July, 2011 07:00.

Again, claim number [1], which proves that you're a liar:

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

The statement is clearly a hypothetical, in response to your hypothetical question. You asked "Where did the barium nitrate go?" That was a hypothetical, because you clearly didn't believe that there ever was any barium nitrate.

My answer was in the context of the hypothetical."The wikipedia article on barium nitrate answers your question. Barium nitrate decomposes under high temps to Barium oxide, nitrous oxide, and oxygen. The barium oxide is in the 800 ppm barium that USGS found in the dust. The nitrous and oxygen entered the atmosphere."

You are just really really anxious to punish me because you think I've made a fool of you but in fact you've only made a fool of yourself.

The fact that neither one of us believes there was barium nitrate there is what makes the whole discussion a hypothetical. Of course the difference between us is that you believe that absence of barium nitrate would prove something it doesn't, and you believe that there was no barium nitrate, and I'm logical enough to know that neither one of us knows whether there was barium nitrate are not, and you're not logical enough.

Anyone who reads the quote can see that I didn't take anything out of context and your quote was ANYTHING BUT A "HYPOTHETICAL."

Here's what you wrote: "...Barium nitrate decomposes under high temps to Barium oxide, nitrous oxide, and oxygen. The barium oxide is in the 800 ppm barium that USGS found in the dust. The nitrous and oxygen entered the atmosphere."

That's not a hypothetical--you damned liar. It's a definitive statement.

And my statement which you replied to was ANYTHING but a "hypothetical."

Here's what I wrote: "...So where did the barium nitrate go? It didn't disappear into the ether--you God damned liar...So where's your evidence for the presence of barium nitrate/oxide at Ground Zero?"

Captain Crackpot continues to lie, "...The fact that neither one of us believes there was barium nitrate there is what makes the whole discussion a hypothetical."

Bullshit!

Here's what you wrote: "...Then you further demonstrate your incompetence by repetitively misconstruing what I said. I was not claiming that barium oxide was present." -- Captain Crackpot, "Entertainment?", 13 July, 2011 07:00.

Again, claim number [1], which proves that you're a liar:

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

The barium nitrate is absolutely a hypothetical because you were always arguing that it wasn't there, and I was never arguing that it was. Barium nitrate is not a necessary component of thermite and so the whole question was, and still is, a non-issue.

My response applies only to the case when barium nitrate is present, and since I never claimed that it was, it was a hypothetical.

I'm sorry you're not smart enough to get these things, but it's not my fault. Are you a drinking man, perhaps?

You started this barium nonsense in late June with the absurd claim that barium nitrate ought to be in the dust if thermite was used.

June 29th 16:37 in the "White Paper" thread you even attributed this idiotic belief to NIST, claiming "NIST didn't test the thermite hypothesis because the USGS data showed no evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide or barium nitrate."

All along I have been arguing that the issue was meaningless. So why would I suddenly start arguing that the barium oxide was there if the issue was meaningless?

Captain Crackpot continues to lie, "...Barium nitrate is not a necessary component of thermite and so the whole question was, and still is, a non-issue."

Get it through your thick skull, idiot. Barium nitrate is a component of thermate, not "thermite."

Furthermore, only one form of thermate is known to exist--military-grade TH-3. You have never proven that any other form is manufactured by any source. And your complete inability to produce a datasheet in support of your idiotic "thermate analogue" malarkey proves my point. Wikipedia is also unable to substantiate their claim for the existence of "thermate analogues."

You're an idiot. You clearly don't know the difference between thermite and thermate--as your continued idiotic insistence that "[b]arium nitrate is not a necessary component of thermite" proves beyond a doubt.

Captain Crackpot lies, "...You started this barium nonsense in late June with the absurd claim that barium nitrate ought to be in the dust if thermite was used."

That's right, Captain Crackpot, whine about context and then take my statement out of context. I've already proven that you took my statement out of context in a previous thread. So give it up, asshole.

I do know what I'm talking about because I avoid making pronouncements on things I know nothing about.

Brian, you do nothing at all but make pronouncements about things you know nothing about. Then all of us here, far more intelligent, educated, and mentally stable than you, laugh at you. You get upset, and call us girls (see above).

Of course it's a hypothetical! You're asking me where is the barium that you don't believe exists!

I know the difference between thermite and thermate. You don't.You began all this nonsense June 29th 16:37 in the "White Paper" thread when you claimed "NIST didn't test the thermite hypothesis because the USGS data showed no evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide or barium nitrate." I didn't take that out of context. You're just engaging in some over-ripe flipping.

I showed you any number of thermate recipes in the book Pyrotechnic Chemisitry, none of which contain barium. Take aluminum and add oxide of lead, tin, tungsten, titanum, copper or iron. Look at yourself, down to claiming that if it's not in wikipedia, it doesn't exist.

You are only trying to create a whole lot of confusion to hide your ignorance and irrationality.

Captain Crackpot lies, "...I know the difference between thermite and thermate. You don't.You began all this nonsense June 29th 16:37 in the "White Paper" thread when you claimed "NIST didn't test the thermite hypothesis because the USGS data showed no evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide or barium nitrate." I didn't take that out of context."

You're ignorant in both quotes, UtterFail. Both the one where you show that you think there's barium in thermite, and the one where you think there should be barium nitrate left over after a thermitic reaction.

You're just tripping all over yourself. Give it up. Barium is not a necessary component of either thermite or thermate. It's only necessary to your barium-water farts.

I'll give them that, but they need to slack off people who are really and truely defending themselves. I believe that I was set-up to get banned by the Twoofers, I tell the truth about them and they take it as a "personal attack" and they run to the Mods crying.

I've seen it the other way too -- the debunker and the Truther give it to each other in equal intensity, and only the Truther comments are labeled violations of the member agreement. They're completely inconsistent.

That's right, goat fucker, when your back is against the wall, CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

I didn't say barium nitrate is a product of a thermate reaction--you senile old coot--I said barium oxide is product of the reaction. I told you a thousand times that since thermate is composed of barium nitrate, barium oxide is the signature product of the reaction. And that's presicely why I use the term "barium nitrate/oxide."

How many times have I written "barium nitrate/oxide"? A thousand?

So tell us--you senile old fairy--why are you incapable of answering a simple question?

So you start out denying that you said barium nitrate is a product of a thermate reaction, and then in the very same post you quote yourself saying "The byproducts of thermate are aluminum oxide and barium nitrate."

You don't even know what you're saying from one sentence to the next, Your Nincumpoopetence.

Your idea of substantiating your points is to cite your own posts? And you claim to be an educated man?

That's right, goat fucker, pretend that you have a scintilla credibility.

You can't read, you can't tell the truth, and you can't think.

Here's what you wrote: "...Then you further demonstrate your incompetence by repetitively misconstruing what I said. I was not claiming that barium oxide was present." -- Captain Crackpot, "Entertainment?", 13 July, 2011 07:00.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Again, claim number [1], which proves that you're a liar:

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- Captain Crackpot, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

Captain Crackpot squeals, "...I showed you any number of thermate recipes in the book Pyrotechnic Chemisitry, none of which contain barium. Take aluminum and add oxide of lead, tin, tungsten, titanum, copper or iron. Look at yourself, down to claiming that if it's not in wikipedia, it doesn't exist."

We've already been over this, fruitcake. You didn't show me anything--unless you consider pseudo-science from Bentham Open "evidence."

3Cu + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 3Cu

W2O3 + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 2W

3SnO + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 3Sn

So where's your evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide at Ground Zero, fruit?

You just keep posting the same rancid, defective spam that shows you can't read, that shows that you lie, and that shows that you don't understand the chemistry you're bluffing about and thus your claim that you've had quantitative analyses is a lie.

You lie like Kevin Barrett, like Willie Rodriguez, like Craig Ranke, like Shyam Sunder, like Condi Rice.

When do you plan to substantiate your idiotic argument? You whine about "thermate analogues", but when I ask you to show us the evidence for molten tungsten (W), molten copper (Cu) and molten tin (Sn), you balk.

FACT: You have no evidence for the presence of thermite, thermate or "nanothermite."

And to add insult to injury, when you're confronted with DIRECT quotes, you deny that they say exactly what everyone who reads them can plainly see.

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- The goat fucker, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

I read the USGS's particle atlas--you jackass. And your specious argument (your SOP) is just as idiotic as when you first made it. The particle atlas states that it is "likely" incomplete. The document, however, has never been updated with new data; thus, you have no reason to believe it's incomplete. The document will only be proven incomplete when it is updated with new data--and after all these years there's been no update.

See, you've proven, once again, that you can't pass a formal examination in elementary logic.

UtterFail, yeah I'm still awake. The library's closed in Castroville, but that doesn't shut me down.

Given that the authorities acted to suppress scientific investigation at Ground Zero--for instance by excluding FEMA investigators from the site and rapidly destroying the steel evidence--it is unreasonable of you to suppose that because the particle atlas was not updated, therefore it was complete.

Christine Todd Whitman's reckless claims gave ample cause for the USGS to terminate their investigation prematurely.

This is funny as hell cuase Brian isn't a scientist at all. More like an armchair keyboard warrior who doesn't have anything to do with his life other than making his life more miserable by making himself look like a total ass to the whole internet world.

Snug, a good portion of the steel was at ground zero for months on end, and picked over by hundreds of forensic experts for an extended period, as I already linked you to.

http://www.lightresearch.net/buffalo/freshkills.html

The steel wasn't destroyed, it was largely moved, and only to Staten Island. It didn't even leave New York City. If you can't remember that, you're either lying, mentally deficient, or stupid, I don't care which, but I'm leaning towards GuitarBill's viewpoint. Also, the gov't was literally giving steel away for use in memorials and such. You could argue that they were only giving out steel that didn't have evidence, but just giving it out in the first place isn't the actions of someone performing a coverup.

Also, you know who are trained in building collapse investigations? Lots of firefighters, such as the hundreds, IIRC, that were at Ground Zero.

UtterFail, your belief that you can use an incomplete particle atlas as a reverse-inventory to show what's not present at Ground Zero is just loony. Have you ever considered a career in balloonery?

Jonn, Dr. Astaneh Asl complained to the House Science Committee that the steel was being destroyed before he could examine it.

He told CBS "If a plane crashes, not only do you keep the plane, but you assemble all the pieces, take it to a hangar, and put it together. That’s only for 200, 300 people, when they die. In this case you had 3,000 people dead. You had a major machine, a major manmade structure. My wish was that we had spent whatever it takes, maybe $50 million, $100 million, and maybe two years, get all this steel, carry it to a lot. Instead of recycling it, put it horizontally, and assemble it. You have maybe 200 engineers, not just myself running around trying to figure out what’s going on. After all, this is a crime scene and you have to figure out exactly what happened for this crime, and learn from it. But that was my wish. My wish is not what happens."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/07/terror/main503218.shtml

No hundreds of forensic experts. Just one guy "running around trying to figure out what’s going on."

The fact that NIST does not have core steel samples to prove its case that fires weakened them shows the inadequacy of the investigation.

The steel was destroyed. It was shipped off to India and China as scrap.

Take some aluminum powder (available from paint suppliers) and mix it with some lead oxide primer paint and you'll have sprayable thermate.

Chief Ray Downey was the FDNY's building collapse expert. He was one of the premiere collapse experts in the country. He told father John Delendick that he thought there were explosives in the top of WTC2 because the collapse was too even.

Chief Ray Downey was the FDNY's building collapse expert. He was one of the premiere collapse experts in the country. He told father John Delendick that he thought there were explosives in the top of WTC2 because the collapse was too even.

Brian, Ray Downey is dead. He has no opinion of the WTC collapses because he died in them.

I'm sure that Chief Downey was able to do an excellent investigation of the collapse in the time between 9:59am and 10:28am that morning. After all he had nothing but examining the rubble of Tower 2 on his mind for that half hour.

No reason to think anyone else could have improved on his opinion in the following months.

Captain Crackpot squeals, "...UtterFail, your belief that you can use an incomplete particle atlas as a reverse-inventory to show what's not present at Ground Zero is just loony. Have you ever considered a career in balloonery?"

The USGS's particle atlas, however, has never been updated with new data; thus, you have no reason to believe it's incomplete. The document will only be proven incomplete when it is updated with new data--and after all these years there's been no update.

FAIL.

All you have are misdirection tactics, straw man arguments, obfuscation, logical fallacies and bald-faced lies.

So where's the evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide at Ground Zero? Where are all the mythical spectra for molten tungsten (W), molten copper (Cu) and molten tin (Sn)--to say nothing of aluminum oxide and molten iron?

You're a liar, and you're too petty, dishonest, thin skinned and insane to admit that you're wrong about this issue and every other issue that you twist beyond recognition. Again, straw man arguments and bullshit that stinks to high-Heaven are not evidence.

UtterFail, anybody can see that you're lying. It didn't say it was likely incomplete, it said it was incomplete and it is likely that other compounds would be identified. It also says that the atlas identified "common phases". There were 500,000 tons of rubble from the towers alone. So expecting that residues from a few tons of thermate would be identified as "common phases" is a bit unreasonable.

Your belief that a failure to update the atlas means the atlas was complete is irrational. After Ms. Whitman's declarations that the air was safe, the federal government was highly motivated to not identify toxins in the dust.

Since the document declares itself to be incomplete, it remains incomplete until an update declares it complete. No update, no change. It's incomplete.

A compound in the form of a white powder or colorless hexagonal ,crystals; melts at 2,020°C (or 3,668 ºF); insoluble in water; used in aluminum production, paper, spark plugs, absorbing gases, light bulbs, artificial gems, and manufacture of abrasives, refractories, ceramics, and electrical insulators.

So Brian thinks that Aluminum Oxide boils at a temperature of 2,977ºC (about 5,390.6ºF). Once again I've looked up the facts and it says that it boils at 2020ºC (about 3,668ºF). So Brian is just making up shit like usual and thinks he knows what he's talking about. Clearly he's lying out his ass, again and again!

And Brian, I'm not lying, the facts stated above are true. Maybe if you'd research stuff instead of talking shit you'd be ok, but I know you can't make that kind of effort because you're lazy.

WAQo, a little research on "corundum" would show you that aluminum oxide is much more than just "corrosion".

Can you explain why Rust is called Iron Oxide for starters?

Also why do you think that corrosion is a form of "gas"?

You've confused the boiling temperature with the melting temperature.

You're the one claiming that Aluminum Oxide is a "gas", not me you fucking idiot. So you're not only confused, but you're confusing yourself because you don't have an explaination why you made up that Aluminum Oxide is a "gas". God Brian, you're fucking stupid!